2018 MOST WANTED BLADE PUTTER

Our Mission:

We are independent, unbiased and always put the #ConsumerFirst. We spend thousands of hours testing and researching products to help you get the most out of your game. This way you can be sure you have reviews you can trust. >> READ MORE

INDEPENDENT & UNBIASED

MyGolfSpy accepts $0 advertising dollars from any of the major golf manufacturers. We believe in always putting #ConsumerFirst.

120

HoursResearched

26

ProductsConsidered

14,695

PuttsHit

25.9m

Readers

INDEPENDENT & UNBIASED

MyGolfSpy accepts $0 advertising dollars from any of the major golf manufacturers. We believe in always putting #ConsumerFirst.

120

HoursResearched

26

ProductsConsidered

14,695

PuttsHit

25.9m

Readers

Our Job Is Your Game.

Is your putter helping or hurting your game? Putters are one of the least fitted clubs in a golfer’s bag. When you pull a random putter off the rack in a store, it’s like you’re buying a very expensive lottery ticket. There’s no promise that it will drop your score.

We’re trying to take the guesswork out of buying a putter. We test all of the major brands, and then some. We get rid of the all the marketing and make it about one thing: Performance.

In 2018, we have yet again improved our scoring metrics to formulate the TRUERank for each putter. The top-ranked putter is that which finished in the statistically significant top group for the largest number of testers.

If you are in the market for a new putter in 2018, this is for you.

The MyGolfSpy Difference

2018’s Most Wanted Blade test is the largest, fully independent putter test conducted in the industry.

GET FIT FOR YOUR GAME WITH TRUEGOLFFIT™

How We Test Putters

Each putter is put through a comprehensive test consisting of a series of putts from distances of 5, 10 and 20 feet. Each of our 20 testers putts the equivalent of 18 holes with each putter. The total number of putts required to finish each hole with each putter is recorded.

Next, we identify the top performing club (the one with the fewest total putts) for each tester. Then, for each golfer, using a 90% confidence interval, we identify any other putters for which the total number of putts is not reliably different from the top performer. The number of putters in this statistical top group varies between testers. For some testers, there is a single statistically significant best, while for others, more than half the field is shown not to be reliably different from an individual’s top performer.

Our Most Wanted winner is the club that finishes in the statistically significant top group for the greatest percentage of our testers. To simplify things a bit, we call the final order TRUERank; a metric that includes the order of finish (rank), along with the percentage of golfers for whom each club was shown to be in the statistical top group.

Here are the complete parameters of this year’s test:

Number of Testers: 20

Handicap Range: +1-16

Test Location: MyGolfSpy Testing Facility

Balls Used: 2018 Bridgestone Tour B-RX

Distances Assessed: 5, 10, and 20 Feet

Holes Completed: 18 (per tester)

Total Putts in Test: 14,695

GIVEAWAY: Win a Shot Scope V2 prize package

Shot Scope Golf

Enter MyGolfSpy’s Giveaway!

Top 5 Blade Putters 2018

EVNROLL ER3

5 Ft

18th

10 Ft

1st

20 Ft

1st

TRUERank

1 (70%)

1

Shop & Support

When you shop online consider using our special link. It helps support this site and other golfers around the world. #ConsumerFirst

Shop & Support

The Data

The chart below contains the individual distance rankings from this year’s test. All columns can be sorted to suit your preference.

Our overall rankings are derived from the test of statistical significance, which is displayed in the last column.

2018 Most Wanted Blade Data

Club Name

Price

5 Feet

10 Feet

20 Feet

TRUERank

EVNROLL ER3

$329.00

18th

1st

1st

1 (70%)

Odyssey O-Works White/Black/White 1w

$199.99

6th

4th

11th

2 (55%)

Edel E-3

$330.00

1st

23rd

5th

2 (55%)

TaylorMade TP Collection Juno

$199.99

11th

8th

4th

2 (55%)

EVNROLL ER1.2

$359.00

9th

14th

3rd

5 (50%)

Bloodline R1-J

$499.99

7th

3rd

14th

5 (50%)

CURE CX2

$279.99

8th

20th

7th

5 (50%)

CURE Tour X1

$299.95

12th

17th

10th

5 (50%)

PING Vault 2.0 Dale Anser

$299.99

16th

23rd

5th

5 (50%)

Bettinardi BB01

$300.00

13th

11th

13th

5 (50%)

Wilson Staff Windy City

$99.99

9th

8th

15th

11 (45%)

Cleveland TFI 1.0

$159.99

4th

4th

21st

11 (45%)

Scotty Cameron Newport 2 Notchback

$379.99

25th

2nd

9th

11 (45%)

MLA Tour F&T

$369.00

15th

15th

11th

11 (45%)

Bettinardi BB29

$300.00

2nd

21st

18th

11 (45%)

SeeMore Mini Giant

$395.00

20th

8th

24th

16 (40%)

Odyssey O-Works Black #1

$199.99

17th

23rd

2nd

16 (40%)

Scotty Cameron Newport 2

$399.99

22nd

15th

16th

18 (35%)

Cleveland Huntington Beach #4

$99.99

19th

6th

15th

18 (35%)

PING Sigma G Anser

$179.99

5th

22nd

22nd

18 (35%)

Sentio Sierra 101

$299.00

3rd

26th

8th

18 (35%)

Cleveland Huntington Beach #8

$99.99

23rd

11th

23rd

22 (30%)

Argolf Arthur

$399.99

24th

18th

19th

22 (30%)

Tommy Armour Impact No.1

$99.99

10th

19th

20th

22 (30%)

Cleveland TFI 8.0

$179.99

13th

6th

25th

25 (25%)

Carbon Ringo

$340.00

21st

13th

16th

25 (25%)

Support Unbiased Testing.

Our job is your game.

DID YOU KNOW: If only 1% of MyGolfSpy readers donated $25, we would be able to become completely independent in 12-months.

Would you be willing to help by giving a donation? Every dollar will help. Make a donation to support our independent and expert golf equipment research. A PayPal account is not required in order to donate.

Donate to MGS

MyGolfSpy

Our mission is #ConsumerFirst. We are here to help educate and empower golfers. We want you to get the most out of your
money, time and performance.
That means providing you with equipment reviews you can trust,
as well as honest reporting on the latest issues affecting the game
today.
#PowerToThePlayer

146 Comments

Gord MacDonald

mackdaddy

6 months ago

I have played an ER 3 for about a year now and I thank mygolfspy.com for it. I have been a good putter for years because I get the pace right most of the time and rarely leave myself more than 3 feet for second putts.

The Evnroll ER 3 has been a God send! Just today I made 3 putts from over 25 feet. I expect and intend to make long putts now.

gunmetal

8 months ago

Unless the faces of these putters were hand milled by tired, drunk millworkers, all of this data tells us didley pooh about the putters, but rather speaks to the golfers and their ABILITY to start a putt on the right line and hit it with correct speed.

I’ve always found “accuracy” such a rubbish data point with which to measure a golf club. It’s the golfer that controls where the ball goes. Looks, feel, and sound would be much better and more helpful data to obtain, even if it is subjective. For my argument I present the Carbon Ringo – winner of the 2015 MGS Most Wanted Blade – now dead last. Change my mind if I’m wrong.

Pip

11 months ago

I love your most wanted series of reviews but one thing I would love to see you guys add is personal comments from the testers. At least the top 4 or 5 in each category. I don’t mean from every tester. Maybe just a few. I love personal feed back.

Pity you could not test out the Quantum putter as the weight difference is pretty significant – Evnroll ER3 / 360 gams – Quantum / about 480 grams and some golfers would do better with a heavier putter.
One other thing – no matter which putter you use, if your ‘read’ is flawed or your putter face is not 90 degrees square to your putt line (a correct read), you are not going to make the putt.
*Think I need to send you guys some ‘Strike-Line’ golf balls.

Clay

Golfinnut

1 year ago

Bottom line … it’s the Indian & not the Arrow IMO. No matter what the statistics or numbers say.
If you have good mechanics, understand how to read greens, etc. it doesn’t matter what you putt with. A shell at the end of a piece of bamboo would work just fine. (for you young folks, that’s a reference to Gilligan’s Island)

sam

11 months ago

That’s it! I have 2 putters. it’s my cheap putter I use.
I taught my self to read greens by reverse engineering, slowed down my swing by half. learned to feel my weight, improved my straight back straight through swing.
When it all works I’m down to 4-5 hc but when it’s not on I’m back into double figures. A $400 putter would make a lighter back pocket!

elhosel

1 year ago

Why don’t you guys publish the make % of the blade putters like you do with the mallets? Seems a rather odd decision if you’re trying to keep things consistent between the tests. They were only published 2 days apart so not sure that is any excuse.

The 1-putt make percentage was added based on feedback to the blade test. We were hoping to eliminate some of the confusion but I think we actually made it worse. We’ll be making some changes in the presentation next year to hopefully simplify.

DL

JMS

1 year ago

The average golfer will have many 20+ foot and 10-20 foot putts each round. This is where the 3.8% (10 foot) and 6.3% (20 foot) advantages come into play. Assuming 6 to 8 20 foot putts and 6 to10 10-20 foot putts/game, this can easily translate to 1-3 strokes saved/game. From 5 feet, the EVNROL ER3, based on this data, will only cost 0.25 strokes/game, but this is easily offset by the extra putts made in the 10+ range.

DL

Johnny Penso

1 year ago

Some more great testing from MGS! Given the stats provided all the putters are really close at all distances. With that in mind I’d like to see a another parameter added to the testing and that is average distance of miss on the 20 footers. Even the pros miss 5 out of 6 of those and for us amateurs what we really need is a sure two putt from that distance and a measure of dispersion might add an important layer of information to the results.

Forza

1 year ago

Also, if the EVNROLL can help you miss the 10-20 footers by 1 or 2 feet instead of 5, that is immensely more helpful than being a “better” club from 5 feet away. I hit some EVNROLL’s the other day and they were pretty damn consistent. I’ve always been a mallet putter, but am now switching to a blade as it easily outhit every other putter I demo’d.

Patrick

1 year ago

MGS thank you for all your hard work. At first, i had the same thoughts as most, 18th from 5 ft was #1???? But after seeing the data variance I can see no flaw in scoring it this way and love the fact you went out to 20 ft. For alot of weekend golfers this should help tremendously. Great stuff and made my first donation!

I’m interested to hear anybody who is opposed to this scoring system and why?

JMS

1 year ago

The take home message here is that the #1 ranked putter vs #18 will save at least 1 stoke/game on average. The fact that the Evnroll 3 is ranked #18 is insignificant . Based on the data the Evnroll 3 is: only 0.5% worse from 5 feet vs the #1 putter from 5 feet – about 1 extra missed putt every ten games. However, from 10 feet it is 3.75% (about 1 putt every four games) better compared to #18 and from 20 feet it is 6.3% better (about 1-2 extra putts/game). Based on these stats, the Evnroll 3 has the potential to save 1-4 strokes/game vs #18. However, the question here is if this putter is so good, why don’t more tour pros use it? Each stroke is worth 10s of thousands to a touring pro. I’m a pro data scientist and a scratch golfer. I’ve had pretty good success with my BB01. Inside 10 feet it has been great but between 10 feet and 20 feet is my dead zone. I’ll do a detailed statistical comparison of the BB01 vs the EVNROLL 3 or 2 and publish the results. The results of this study imply that there are no statistical differences between the performance of the top 18 putters within 5 feet. Instead of rankings, the putters should be placed in distinct performance classes for each distance.

Donn Rutkoff

1 year ago

Regarding the stats: maybe you could include that there is no statistically significant difference between the top 5 or 10 ranked putters in the 5 foot test. i am pretty sure know what this term means and your software probably calculates it. If you include it in the chart it cuts down on a lot comments that question the method or conclusion. It would certainly help me to apply your test results on many of your tests. Keep up the good work.

Donn Rutkoff

1 year ago

So what about carrying 2 putters in the bag? An Evnroll for mid and lon range and a different type, probably heavier head, for purer straight hits on the short putts. Anybody do this? I think I will. I don’t need 4 long clubs between driver and 4 iron. Two is enough, and 3 wedges.

Jacob McCain

6 months ago

Never. I like clubs that can do multiple things. I can use an extra iron, wood, or hybrid to punch out from trouble, hit low bullets to get extra run, and hit high shots that stop quickly. Having two clubs for only one extremely limited purpose stifles creativity in other parts of the game. There would have to be a TREMENDOUS difference for me to consider doing this, and 1 extra missed putt every 5-6 rounds simply isn’t enough.

Jerry

1 year ago

Tony- ok I get it, there is negligible difference between some or most of these putters as your remarks seem to imply. The numbers are what they are. Can you clarify the testing methodology a bit more for me and others? Specifically, would a tester playing 18 simulated holes play those same 18 holes for each putter? Were the putters randomized to prevent the tester from being semi-automatic after “knowing” the distance and break by the 26th putter? I mean if I got to practice putt 25 times on a hole I’d certainly know how hard to hit my putt and how many balls outside the left edge to aim it. Now if you tested by playing all 18 holes with the same putter then starting over on hole 1 and so on? Even after a while you know the putts. Just curious.

Chris Troxell

Anonymous

1 year ago

I have 3 Er 2 & via physics it undoubtedly improves distance ‘feel ‘& accuracy because off center misses seem more solid-even when intentional,the difference being I have to play fast putts off toe/heel to deaden speed on quicker puts,I’ve put a bit of lead tape 2 offset this – great putter w the traditional ping
anser rocker look,

Jon Silverberg

1 year ago

I have found that playing fast putts off the heel or toe to deaden them leads to inconsistent ball direction. The alternative, which works for me, is to grip way down on the steel shaft to shorten the pendulum swing.

Bob Smith

1 year ago

Totally agree

JasonA

1 year ago

So is a more expensive putter better?

The correlation between price and rank is 0.25 which is only a weak likelihood. Interesting the only distance that more expensive putters in test are better than the cheaper ones is at 20 feet. (at 5ft correlation is -0.17 . Negative means cheaper is better)

But average price of putters is a bit crazy. 273 USD. Seem excessive when compared this to an iron or hybrid in terms of technology and manufacturing. Such is the cost of fashion.

Anonymous

Brian

DL

Jerry

1 year ago

Putting is such a screwball black art that I barely ever pay much attention to tests. We all have a friend who can barely scrape a good round together yet is consistently several putting strokes less every time you play. And most of us amateurs have good days followed by bad days. The stat that gets overlooked is distance from the hole and putting position, ie straight uphill vs downhill with a break. Add in Bent grass vs Bermuda and the variations therein. Most golfers know a properly positioned approach shot that leaves a putt less than 20’ on the better side of the hole makes for a good putting round. We all see what the Pro’s use and even Spieth has bad days. Now as I read and re-read your article I too was shaking my head at “18th” from 5’ is ranked #1?? I cannot think of a more important putt than 5’. I would trade making the 20 footer for making the 5 footer every day of the week. I am an 8 handicap and while I don’t track my putts I know the difference between a 74 and an 82 is how many 3-putts I make plus up and downs on missed greens. The 5-footer to save par is everything in scoring for me at least. The 2nd most important element in putting (to me) is the “come back” putt or “leave”. Three-putts generally result from having “to make” from outside your comfort zone. Tiger can go for birdie and run by 8’ but he is a robot on the come-back where most everyone else will struggle. So if MGS is truly saying what I perceive here perhaps the solution is carrying “2” PUTTER’s! One for 20 footers and one from 5’. I mean throw out a club you don’t use much and carry two putters if this test is to be believed.

Aaron

1 year ago

Hi Jerry, I am in total agreement with you! I cannot understand how the Evnroll ER3 is 18th out of 26 in 5-foot putts to be named No.1. I am a 2-handicap with a fitted Hiro Matsumoto Putter for more eight years. I can recall countless times the criticality to drain those must-make putts within two yards to score within my perimeters. I suppose MGS needs to be as critical as we serious golfers are before grading and ranking. But, I do thank MGS for having put so much effort in the test. Perhaps, I am bias, when it comes to putters and wedges I felt no well-known brands can stack-up to small Japanese manufacturers in the numbers, materials used, the meticulous precision and care in the manufacturing processes, and feel of their hand-crafted products.

MyGolfSpy

Think about it like this, hopefully this helps you visualize it better.

5 FT:
1st Place 1,000 putts
18th Place 1,005 putts

10 FT:
1st Place 1,200 putts
18th Place 1,245 putts

20 FT:
1st Place 1,500 putts
18th Place 1,595 putts

This is just an example to show what separates those 1st – 18th from 5 and 20 ft.

kevin

1 year ago

regarding mygolfspy response….this is exactly why a simply rankings 1-whatever does not work. we need to group putters into pods based on strokes saved. where do the significant drop offs occur. there is nearly nothing between the putters when it comes to inside 5 ft, yet ranking them 1- whatever is easily misread.

Tony did each of the testers putt with a version of each putter that was the correct length and lie angle for them? Or did all testers putt with putters that were all the same length and lie angle? Please provide some details thanks.

Hi guys! Still hoping you will be able to take the time to answer my question, thank you.

DL

1 year ago

I believe each tester only uses the one putter, no adjustments. It would add too much complexity and variables to the test, along with the fact that they use what the manufacturer provides (or they buy).

MajorMike

1 year ago

Having attended golf school a few times, the instructors all checked the students on their putting set up. This included eye alignment, putter lie, body alignment, and type of swing path (arc vs straight).
In almost every case, at least one or more of these factors were incorrect. Accordingly, not checking these factors prior to any putting test, I believe, substantiall impacts the data collected. All the school instructors concurred if you want to improve quickly, spend your money on a professional putter fitting. Although I do appreciate My Golf Spy conducting this test, but would advise any player have a putter fitting before making a decision to buy any putter especially the big $$$ ones.

Marc

1 year ago

How can you pick a putter 1st place that finished 18th inside 5 feet? That’s where you’ve got to shine! I find this very confusing. Yes it is important to lay it close and make some longer putts, but odds are you are not going to

MakeParNotWar

1 year ago

Dear MGS Team,

After reading all the comments this morning, I’ve got to say you guys have the “patience of Job”! Apparently, despite your best efforts to educate the masses, they would rather spew verbal diarrhea in the comment section rather than research (smart move with cut&paste…). Once again, well done test.

I am curious about why no ER2 this year. I’m guessing that it’s because the 2018 ER2 has not changed from the 2017 ER2. I thought the ER3 was included in last years test as well. What changes have they made to it?? At first glance, it looks like they turned it into an ER2 with a notch.

J-Full

1 year ago

Not sure how feasible it’d be (maybe even expensive) but can the GCQuad be used for putting? I’d be curious how the testers strokes deviate from their “normal” stroke when testing various putters. So if you’re a straight back-straight through the putters that produce the most similar stroke for you get more weight in the test.

Essentially this could say to the readers “hey if nothing else changed about your stroke, these putters are better or worse”. Because testers are human they’d be unconsciously or even consciously changing their stroke for each putter they try. And I’m not sure there’s a way to account for that built-in bias.

That being said, I work in analytics/data science for a living and sometimes more information just muddies the water further for the end consumer, even though it’s a more thorough approach

Chad

1 year ago

The statistical method used is not going to determine an absolute “best” putter for everyone. The statistics reveal that the ER3 will be among the best putters tested for the most people, but not necessarily the best putter for any one person. Each person must test that for themselves (potentially up to 25% would find the Ringo the best for them based upon the statistics). It’s just numbers, no emotion…which makes it actually usable and valuable information (unlike the HotList).

Regis

1 year ago

I remember when a “blade’ putter meant a Titleist Bullseye. Since those days I’ve played with golfers with expensive putters who can’t putt and golfers with unorthodox strokes and garage sale putters that are more than willing to take my lunch money. DJ was in Carlsbad last week. TMAG had 10-15 putters made up, all Spiders, identical in all respects, except for the paint job and sight lines. Some had variances of as much as 4feet from a distance of 15 feet. One was center cut on every stroke

Donovan

DL

1 year ago

It just goes to show what money will do. Most of the guys playing Nike drivers gained instant yardage after Nike blew up. The Scotty guys are always salty when their beautiful putters end up doing poorly in ALL of these tests. I don’t think a single one has hit the top 5, ever, although I could be wrong.

ChristopherKee

Nottingtom

1 year ago

Some suggestions
– the 5footer group are likely to be a very high make percentage therefore the different “ranks” may not be relevant.
– it would be interesting to see lovelies or 95% C.I. For each ranking at each distance.
– most important of all – MGS are NOT saying buy the evnroll. They are saying it tested the best but you should all go get fit. It’s not practical to try everything on the market so they are giving you a head start. (Having said that I bought the original ping ketsch after hitting it for ten minutes on an indoor green after it won most wanted. Still have it even though I believe the true roll was broken on the initial batches I.e. Grooves the wrong depth).
– Tony I understand that the 075534£ and testers differ year on year and there are serious time constraints (there is a reason a lot of clinical scientific articles , my background, come out years after research is initiated) but it would be interesting to see inter and intra operator reliability stats for each putter with a 2-3 month time gap. My feeling is that this could have a huge implication and also show up manufacturers claims further.

Retesting several months out would definitely be interesting, but probably isn’t in the cards for us. It takes us a good bit of the year just to get through the bag the first time. If we could get the entire industry to agree to not release anything new for a year or two, we could do some really cool things.

Look at CIs as the basis for ranks at each distance is easily doable and could be interesting. I actually like the idea quite a bit, but it worries me from a presentation standpoint, however. As you can probably ascertain from the comments, ranking the way we do now – while I (and everyone on the industry side we’ve spoken with) believe it’s a fundamentally better (more meaningful and sound) approach, it’s not the most intuitive.

Always a grind to do it better…bigger grind still to ensure everyone understands it.

Lou Body

1 year ago

I am a believer in Golf Digest’s ranking system of Gold and Silver even recognizing that there must be bias in the magazine toward big advertisers. In that you accept no advertising I think MGS would be more relevant if you had a system more like Golf Digest’s. Don’t make a subjective judgment on who is #1, just give us your idea of who is in each category. I don’t use a Scotty Cameron, for instance, but many wealthy touring pros do so Cameron putters can’t be as bad as your testers say. I use a driver (XXIO) that your tests think stinks and I think it’s the best thing I’ve ever hit. This all seems to prove that there are different opinions from your tests so “Categories like Gold and Silver” might be a better way to rank clubs.

Brooky

1 year ago

The rankings aren’t subjective, though. They’re measured results. In this case, the putters are ranked based on how they performed from 5, 10, and 20 feet. It’s not how the testers felt the putters did from each distance, it’s how the putters actually performed.

If MGS switched to a gold/silver/bronze system, they’d still be using the rankings from their test results. So maybe they’d lump the top 3 performers into the ‘gold’ category and the next 5 into the ‘silver’ category, etc. But that wouldn’t change much because the underlying data/rankings would still be the same.

There is absolutely ZERO subjectivity in our tests. Rankings are based on performance differences and then an analysis of whether or not those apparent differences are actually reliable differences.

We could call it gold, silver, or bronze, but we’d just be playing with semantics. In this test, we had a clear #1. A tie at second. We could have kept going, but there was a logjam after that which suggests that there isn’t much in the way of actual difference in the performance of those putters.

There is always some subjectivity in the testers themselves. Ooh I love Ping means a little more attention paid to it. Yuck I hate Cobra for example means not giving it a fair shake. It happens every day here in our shop. Sometimes I personally think in the opposite way. They stress over the putter they truly want and do poorly with it, then they are loose with the one they hate and roll it in every time. Bottom line they almost never end up buying the best putter for themselves. My personal winner is a powerbuilt that I had to buy, and keep coming back to, but still never gamed in a tournament because of its name.

Doug Nasur

1 year ago

Clear number 1? I would never buy a putter that couldn’t place better then 18th in 5 ft. range. To me 5ft is the most important range.

MyGolfSpy

1 year ago

Think about it like this, hopefully this helps you visualize it better.

5 FT:
1st Place 1,000 putts
18th Place 1,005 putts

10 FT:
1st Place 1,200 putts
18th Place 1,245 putts

20 FT:
1st Place 1,500 putts
18th Place 1,595 putts

This is just an example to show what separates those 1st – 18th from 5 and 20 ft.

JOEL GOODMAN

1 year ago

AFTER PLAYING THIS GAME FOR 70+ YEARS AND USING MANY DIFFERENT PUTTERS, I HAVE COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT IT IS THE HANDS THAT HOLD IT RATHER THAN THE STICK THAT MAKES A DIFFERENCE. ANYONE PAYING OVER $100 FOR A putter HAS MORE MONEY THAN BRAINS. $300 FOR A THING THAT COSTS $6.00 TO MAKE??? YA GOTTA BE STOOOOOPID. I AM USING A CALLAWAY PUTTER OF 1990 VINTAGE AND HAVE NOT 3 PUTTED THIS YEAR. I AM 8.0 INDEX USGA HANDICAP

Raj LP

1 year ago

Appreciate the sentiment Joel and I agree… these putter prices are pretty ridiculous. However they cost quite a bit more than $6 to make. You are not pricing just the materials into the putter which is still more than $6. You have to price in the man hours spent researching, the milling equipment, the shop, transportation and logistics. All of that adds up. Small shops doing this for their livelihood don’t have the economies of scale, the putter needs to cost enough to be able to cover their operational costs and also allow them to take care of their families.

DL

1 year ago

Your attitude certainly shows your age Joel. Thankfully we have more data nowadays (Arccos, MyGolfSpy come to mind) that can help us determine the BEST equipment (along with fitting) for each of us. Oh, and you forgot the caps lock on, sir. How are the old hickory shafts doing for you?

kevin

1 year ago

you really didn’t have to give your age. its painfully obvious. $6 dollars to make a putter? you haven’t got a clue.

Doug

1 year ago

Tony, you guys are in my wavelength on the top selections on this one! I’ve been going back and forth looking at the ER-3, the BB-1 (and a couple other Bettinardis) and the E-3 for some time. These have the same deadweighting as other larger mallets, like the Scotty Futura heads, but with less face profile.

Mat Davis

Nigel

1 year ago

I feel like we need more than just the raw data here. There needs to be some interpretation as to how we get to the best from these numbers.

I’m actually finding these tests to be a credibility issue at this point – it’s like the Snell vs Titleist analysis. MGS basically decided what makes one ball better than the other. I have no dog in that race (currently playing the Cut Blue, but I like both the Pro V and the Snell products), but according to the “executive summary” for these balls, the Snell is essentially better because it’s half a yard longer off the tee, with negligible differences in ball speed, spin etc. However, the Titleist has slightly better accuracy off the tee, and has considerably more spin off the wedge. In my world, that makes the Titleist better, though I would happily concede that these are close enough to be considered a wash for the average golfer. Again, no dog in the race, just seems like a bizarre metric for success for me – I’ll take better accuracy and better greenside spin over half a yard longer any day. I feel like it was just decided that one metric (distance off the tee) should be used to say Snell balls are better because that’s really the story that’s going to move the needle and draw more readers – if it had been “these balls are equal” or “Titleist edges out the Snell”, it simply wouldn’t be as attractive.

In 2016, the Carbon Ringo was the third best putter, this year it’s literally dead last. What’s changed?

I feel like these tests need to go in either one direction or another. Either explain to me why the 18th best putter from 5 feet is the best putter so that that I have a qualified position, or give me just the raw data – but if you’re giving me the raw data, don’t then give me an arbitrary “this one’s the best” – allow me to make that decision myself. Or, if you want the best of both worlds, break it down to “most accurate driver”, “longest driver”, “best putter from 10 feet”, so that people can prioritize what’s most important to them.

I get that the “most wanted” moniker is great click bait, but this is such a subjective game that I just don’t think we live in a world where one driver/ball/putter is going to be best for everyone, and to imply that is to creep toward just making another Hot List.

I don’t believe we said the Snell Ball was better. I believe what we surmised was that the balls over similar performance despite their difference in price points.

In fact, here’s what we actually said:

The data collected during this test suggests that the Snell MTB Black and Titleist Pro V1 offer similar performance. Differences while often minimal are most pronounced when comparing spin across irons and wedges.

While we can understand better players preferring a higher-spinning ball, particularly as shots move closer to the green, the most significant difference between two models tested is not found in performance, but in price.

The Titleist Pro V1 currently retails at $52/dozen; while the Snell MTB sells for a whopping $20 cheaper at $31.99/dozen. Snell also offers volume discounts. When you purchase 6 dozen – the price drops to $27.33/dozen.

We did a test using the same methodologies we use during Most Wanted (randomization, filtering of outliers, etc.) and published the results. That said, and not to get too far off topic, we’re looking at ways to tweak our ball testing. I have some ideas, but what I think is the right way to test, analyze, and present data, isn’t always the most intuitive for the reader.

Moving on to putters…and starting with the Ringo.

What’s changed? It’s a different putter. Same model name, but like everybody else’s stuff, it’s changed/evolved, and not for the better. It’s also worth noting that we’ve increased the number of testers and tweaked our testing protocols.

Regarding why a putter which was 18th from 5 feet, could finish first overall – asked and answered, but it’s an easy copy and paste, so here you go:

The quick and simple explanation is that performance gaps increase with distance. For example, the gap (based on total number of putts) between the #1 and #18 putters from 5 feet, is smaller than the gap between #1 and #18 at 10 feet, which is smaller than the gap between #1 and #18 at 20′.

When we crunch the numbers, it’s about the total number of putts for the ‘best’ putter for each tester, and then determining for which other putters performance was not reliably different from that top putter.

That last bit is where you’ve totally missed the point. The way we do things doesn’t creep us closer towards being like the Hot List (and everybody else), it what moves us farther away. Instead of relying on raw averages, total counts, votes from editors, etc., we use statistical analysis to determine if the performance differences we see in our test are reliably so (repeatable). For a 20 person test, we use a 90% confidence level. And under that methodology, we found the ER3 to be in the top group for 70% of testers. We’re not saying it’s the best putter for everyone. That’s an assertion we’ve never made for any product we’ve ever tested. Instead, what we’re saying is that based on a statistical analysis of our test, the ER3 offers the highest probability of being among the best performers (the top group) for any given golfer.

Nigel

1 year ago

I understand that there was more to the test than meets the eye with respect to the ball test, but I maintain that there was, at least on the face of it, an assertion that the Snell ball was better. The first thing you’ll see (after the preamble) is a picture of a Snell MTB Black next to a big number 1 with laurels around it, and below it, a Pro V1 next to a big number 2 with laurels around it. Next to those, you have what I referred to above as an “executive summary”, which consisted of distance, accuracy, spin, launch and ball speed. Qualify it however you want, but to say that you never claimed one was better the other is blatantly untrue. The fact may remain that you qualified it below the summary, but there is no doubt in my mind that any casual reader is going to see the #1 and #2, then will decide whether or not to keep reading from there.

I get what you’re saying about the Ringo – that’s a fair point. I suppose it’s on the consumer to see if the model has changed at all. I also get your response to the issue of the “18th from 5 feet” argument, but wouldn’t there have been a lot of value in explaining that in the article itself? I feel like having that in the article would have saved you a couple hours of typing today. With that said, hindsight is 20/20, and I get it.

I still feel like labeling a club as “the best” is still a move toward homogenizing club reviews, but I see your point. I guess i’d rather see a move toward raw data, and really just drawing your own conclusions from it over any rankings. Back when we were all limited to getting reviews from major golf magazines, I always preferred Golf Magazine over Golf Digest, as it didn’t actually rank anything. It broke each review into “look”, “sound and feel”, “accuracy and forgiveness” etc. and even had a “cons” section, then gave you a brief bottom line. Now, GM no longer does this, but I always thought this was good way of doing things – allow me to focus on whatever matters most for me, and even let me know what issues people had with the club.

I’m sticking to my guns on the Snell review, but I get what you’re saying about everything else. I always enjoy reading your stuff, and I do really appreciate your taking the time to respond to people’s comments – it shows how invested you are in the process.

I looked at the Snell v Pro V1, and I’m inclined to agree with your side of it. Obviously, it’s logical to rank driver performance by distance, and so I think that’s why the rankings were there, but given the realities of the comparisons, I’m not sure we meant to display a rank. Not to get too far into the weeds, but the software is designed to auto-rank and it’s a couple of extra clicks to override and not rank. I went ahead and made those changes.

Regarding adding additional detail, that’s something we go back and forth all the time. It’s a battle between streamlining and making it more consumable for today’s audience and really digging in. If you want more detail, keep pushing for it…ask your friends to push for it.

RomeoPapaZulu

1 year ago

This was actually an enjoyable back and forth conversation. Its amazing what can happen when two sides explain their point of view in a civilized manner.

There sure is a lot of whining about not including this or that 15 yr old putter or how Guerin Rife must be paying you the big bucks. I’d spend less time responding to those types of comments and more to productive conversations like this. I don’t know that any type of response is going to change the minds of the folks that think all this stuff is rigged.

I am sure there are a lot of data-lovers on here and all of this information just gets the minds whirling about how to tweak something to squeeze out that extra bit of usefulness. Do you collect info from these tests to feed back into the magic club fitting program you are working on? Do you fit the testers afterwards to find the “ideal” style of putter to build up trends? Does this data show any correlation of performance to toe hang and how open and closed a golfers putting stroke goes? What about grips? Is that the reason the Anser plummeted this year? Did they use that terrible PP60 grip on last year’s model? I have spent several hours in golf stores trying to narrow down a best performer, and first choice was the Cameron 5.5m but price was just too much. The Sigma G Tyne was a very close second, but I couldn’t get over that awful feel of the grip. Finally tried the Cleveland Satin Elevado at the right length and figured for the price it would work well enough. Once I put a grip on that most closely resembled the Cameron grip, and it is putting lights out. I’m not asking anyone to add in another 10 variables by putting a range of grips on each of the twenty five clubs. Maybe I’m just asking for that in a different test 😉 I guess on the bright side is that there will never be an end to new equipment to test or to the quest to develop the perfect testing parameters and the best way to display it.

Brock

1 year ago

Tony – what I really love about MGS is that you rely solely on numbers to determine the rankings. No opinions. No subjectivity. I see a lot of comments where people just don’t get that. The rankings are objectively driven by numbers and interpreted by statistical methods. Why don’t people understand that?

However, there has to be some subjectivity in how you interpret and weigh the numbers to come up with a final ranking. Ronald Coase (economist) famously stated “if you torture data long enough, it will confess to anything”.

For those of us with some background in statistics, it might be nice to see some more transparency into the methods. However, I’m not sure that would actually translate to the average reader. Maybe have a section that is hidden that the user can expand if they want to see more insight into the methodologies used. Or maybe some fancy graphs with sigmas, etc. I’m just spitballing here.

Keep doing what you’re doing. This objective testing is a wonderful, refreshing antidote to the only other ways to get information about golf equipment – fabricated marketing nonsense from the manufacturers and sponsored content from “reputable” magazines.

MyGolfSpy

1 year ago

The Cleveland Huntington Beach #1 which finished 4th last year was NOT in this years test.

cody

Almost the same is not the same. If there’s one thing we’ve learned over the years is that in any category, even seemingly minute things can have a significant influence on performance.

kevin

1 year ago

“almost” …. the shape of a putter matters, even if somewhat similar. a slightly rounded headed, af ront site vs back site, simply a different color,….all of these types of changes matter even though you may not view them as significant changes

Rick

1 year ago

Would it be possible to include current gamers in these tests? Would be nice to know if these newer putter are “better” than what each of the testers is currently using.

So from the 2017 most wanted blade putters the Ping Sigma G Anser ranked 2nd, so I bought one. Now the 2018 most wanted blade putter ranks it 22nd. Does this mean it was up against better putters this year? Yet the TM TP Juno which was also ranked 2nd in 2017 and is still ranked 2nd in 2018. How can two putters be ranked the same one year and be so far apart in the rankings the next year?

Spero

TBT

1 year ago

Weird that the Edel ranked 1st on 5 footers, 5th on 20 footers…..but tanked on 10 footers…..very strange….I could easily see having a problem with either the short parts or the really long ones….. but to be good at both of those but struggle with the in between seems odd

At face value it might seem odd. That said, I have the E3 in my bag currently and because of the torque balanced nature of it, mid-range putts are still a work in progress. I immediately loved the E3 on putts inside 10 feet, but the feel was very different for me on 15-20 footers. As such, I’m not as consistent from that distance yet as I hope to be in a couple weeks.

John Willson

The quick and simple explanation is that performance gaps increase with distance. For example, the gap (based on total number of putts) between the #1 and #18 putters from 5 feet, is smaller than the gap between #1 and #18 at 10 feet, which is smaller than the gap between #1 and #18 at 20′.

When we crunch the numbers, it’s about the total number of putts for the ‘best’ putter for each tester, and then determining for which other putters performance was not reliably different from that top putter.

Jared

1 year ago

In that case, would it be useful to publish the average number of putts for each putter at each distance? I’d imagine that’d give a pretty good view of how wide the gap is between the different rankings.

We considered that, but from this side it gets complicated quickly. As you’d expect, in the overall, there is a correlation between number of putts and rank, but it’s not absolute. Our new methodology is focused on identifying the putters that produced reliable different (better) performance for the highest percentage of golfers.

kevin

1 year ago

yes i’m sure its very tiring constantly repeating your original comment…but at some point you’ll need to recognize that the data could’ve been presented differently to clear up some of these questions that so many repeatedly ask. one stupid question can go ignored. if the same question is being repeatedly asked, maybe the presenter needs to reevaluate

JonD

1 year ago

Not sure how you can get to the top 5. Looks more like the top 4. In any event how can you leave out probably the best putter on the market today. The Boccieri Heavy Putter. Been gaming one for 15 years.

The first year after replacing my Ping Anser with the Heavy Putter I went from averaging 34.31 putts a round down to 32.23 putts a round, in a period of less than a season. Over the past 15 years since I have been below that number every season, currently I am at 31.69 putts a round.

I had a terrible case of the yips. The Heavy putter cured that. It seems even better on fast greens. The Heavy is an acquired taste undoubtedly. But with every other putter I have tried the heads literally vibrate at address, not a real confidence builder on a tricky 5 footer.

Now I just get the club moving and it stays right on line, due to the weight of the club.My biggest problem now is simply reading the green.

Dennis

DL

1 year ago

No one really cares that you like your putter Denis, seriously. The whole point in these tests is to find what should reliably work well for the greatest amount of golfers.

DL

1 year ago

No one cares about your putter. No one but you. It’s ridiculous to constantly see people come on here and say things like, “but you didn’t include the XXX clubs, it works wonders for me”. I can’t believe how dense some people are on here, it’s excruciating. It must be like pulling teeth to the staffers here reading this stuff day in and day out after putting in a TON of hours talking to industry people, very smart math people and doing a ton of testing just to have someone come out and say some subjective shit like you posted.

Dennis

1 year ago

Relax DL. I was simply responding to the post directly above me, but I do appreciate your concern for the forum and the benefit it provides. If I choose to comment on future reviews, I’ll be sure and run it through you first.

KM

Jim Bob Cooter

1 year ago

you putting the 18th ranked from 5 feet shows a blatant flaw in your testing… so you get it close from 15 feet and leave yourself a short putt for par….what happens? that is like purposely choosing Shaq to shoot free throws for the win, it just doesn’t add up. Also like pinch hitting your 18th best batter in a game on the line situation. also putters are very personal, if i dont like the look/feel of a putter, i will not putt well. Just my 2 cents. Would love to hear feedback on my thoughts? thanks again MGS and toney for the awesome content this year

The quick and simple explanation is that performance gaps increase with distance. For example, the gap (based on total number of putts) between the #1 and #18 putters from 5 feet, is smaller than the gap between #1 and #18 at 10 feet, which is smaller than the gap between #1 and #18 at 20′.

When we crunch the numbers, it’s about the total number of putts for the ‘best’ putter for each tester, and then determining for which other putters performance was not reliably different from that top putter.

Jim Bob Cooter

1 year ago

Toney,

Awesome, thanks for the response!! That makes more sense now to me! Looking forward to the mallet testing. Cheers to less three putts this season!

Frank

1 year ago

Now I am not one to doubt the validity of these tests but I do see some very strange patterns. Like others have stated about the ER3 finishing 18/1/1, are the grooves hurting the roll from 5 feet in? What about the Edel E-3 finishing 1/23/5, how can the best putter from 5 ft be so bad at 10 and then finish well again from 20 feet? Or is it just that the differences are so small between these putters that the margin from first to last is almost indistinguishable? I wonder then if it becomes a matter of visual alignment becoming optimized at certain distances more so than roll, but because I cant believe face weighting would get worse then better from three different distances.

Mr Money

1 year ago

When it really comes down to it, putting is about “feel”. “Feel” can be so many different things for different people. Is it truly how it feels when you hit it? What is going on in that moment though? Vibration of the club head hitting the ball? Then isn’t that the grip? What about sound? So many people comment on something sounding good/bad when they hit it.

For putters, I think it boils down to what putter gives you the most confidence. I think alignment features (sightline(s), markings, ext), general shaping of the putter, materials (milled/cast face, insert, ext) and marketing all come together to grant (or take away) confidence for a consumer. It’s the reason you can go into a store, pick up a super old putter yet still feel confident using it.

Frank

1 year ago

The problem if it’s all about feel why even do a test ? Every year I hear manufacturers saying they have come up with the latest innovation, better roll, better feel, better weighting, Improved alignment aides etc. And that doesn’t even get into grips. I saw where Odyssey made a huge investment to get their EXO putters to sound like the popular white hot insert because so many tour players wanted to judge their hits by sound and felt it improved perception and sensory feedback. I’d have to say for me once you take the static measurements and get fitted, it comes down to which putter in the store makes me feel confident, and there is no real science in that. I had a good friend buy a Ping DOC putter he couldn’t miss with at the store, inside or outside at any distance. When he got it to the course he couldn’t hit a bull in the butt with both hands with it, let alone make putts, but it did fly nicely.

DL

1 year ago

The funny thing about feel is that it is really meaningless when it comes to performance, yet everyone THINKS it plays a huge role. I bet you if Tony asked each of the participants what their thoughts were on the feel of each putter, the winning putters might not “win” the feel competition. Does it matter in the end? Maybe. I think MGS can’t tell you which club to buy, but it can tell you clubs to try! If you try the top 3 or 4 (thankfully they have done the work to eliminate 15 of them), you can then go for “feel”. The scorecard is all that matters to me, I’d putt with a trash can lid if MGS tested that as best for me. 🙂

DL

1 year ago

What it is is that the 5 footers end up being almost a wash (almost irrelevant?) as the putters will all be extremely close to each other at 5 feet. You get more of an effect from 10 or 20 feet and you can actually start to get to the cream of the crop from those distances.

Kevin

We stopped publishing strokes gained as it becomes superfluous when we start looking at statistical significance. Since our environment is controlled in that putts are from consistent differences, the SG/SG18 value was absolutely correlated to the number of putts. So basically, whether or not we use SG/SG18, it was always fewest putts wins. This year we’ve expanded that we’ve explicitly considered statistical significance – which is the basis for our rankings.

N

DL

1 year ago

I’m not sure how you can look at the results above with 70% of testers doing the best with 1 particular putter and then claim that “it’s the puttee”. Clearly, it’s not just that or you’d see very little variation between the putters at all. To have one come out at 70% is statistically significant. I think it’s conceited to being ignorant without regards to evidence which is right in front of you.

MyGolfSpy

Its not the arrow its the indian shooting the arrow argument. Yes. but what if I give the indian a crooked arrow, what if he gets one absolutely perfectly straight and balanced? You telling me he won’t hit more bulls eyes with one versus the other? NO its not going to make a poor putter a good one, only lessons will do that.

DL

1 year ago

Exactly. I wonder sometimes why these complainers are even on the article if they just bitch the whole time about everything. Go and read a Digest and the “feels like butter” nonsense where everything gets gold!

JasonA

1 year ago

Out of the 20 golfers in the test
14 were “optimal” with ER3
9 were “optimal” with best Wilson / Cleveland

IF:
– you got fitted with a Wilson / Cleveland THEN save $$$
– you don’t care about your score THEN Wilson / Cleveland off the shelf
– want best chance of being optimal without fitting THEN ER3

Kenny B

1 year ago

I want a putter that is 1st in putts from 5 feet, not 18th. That appears to be the Edel. However, I am not sure why the Edel is next to last from 10 feet, but 5th from 20 feet. Are explanations coming?

The quick and simple explanation is that performance gaps increase with distance. For example, the gap (based on total number of putts) between the #1 and #18 putters from 5 feet, is smaller than the gap between #1 and #18 at 10 feet, which is smaller than the gap between #1 and #18 at 20′.

When we crunch the numbers, it’s about the total number of putts for the ‘best’ putter for each tester, and then determining for which other putters performance was not reliably different from that top putter.

Bullman

DL

1 year ago

Here’s what Tony said 100 times already, “The quick and simple explanation is that performance gaps increase with distance. For example, the gap (based on total number of putts) between the #1 and #18 putters from 5 feet, is smaller than the gap between #1 and #18 at 10 feet, which is smaller than the gap between #1 and #18 at 20′. When we crunch the numbers, it’s about the total number of putts for the ‘best’ putter for each tester, and then determining for which other putters performance was not reliably different from that top putter.”

Ben

1 year ago

I would add to dl’s Response that given the technology that evnroll has. Their tech is nullified from shorter distance. A golfer doesn’t struggle with keeping things online or distance control from 5 feet which is what evnroll does. So from longer distance their tech shines. But from 5 feet it’s all about getting the ball started on line. I can’t for the life of me figure out why people argue data so much. Almost like they hate facts or something.

Ryan

1 year ago

I have been playing the ER3 for a full season now and I really love the heavier head counterbalance, especially with my new grip change to left hand-low. It really helps me clear the putter easier with no restriction as I hit the ball and into the upswing. I took some Testors red model paint and painted in the two dots on top to provide easier visibility. My putting handicap is 8.1 according to Arccos and improving. 24.9% 1-putt, 60.4% 2-putt, and 14.8% 3+ putts over 169 putts on the green.

Brian

1 year ago

I had an ER2. Never got to try before I bought since I’m lefty. The ER2 drastically improved my long putting but I regressed from 10ft and in. So this data doesn’t surprise me one bit. It felt to heavy for me to take a small but accelerating stroke on the 4-6 footers .

DL

1 year ago

What they said is that it basically means less at the 5 ft mark compared to 10 & 20. The putters are almost statistically the same as you get to the shortest distance but mean a lot more as you get further away, hence Evnroll winning.

Here’s Tony’s copypasta from 100 different posts today:

“The quick and simple explanation is that performance gaps increase with distance. For example, the gap (based on total number of putts) between the #1 and #18 putters from 5 feet, is smaller than the gap between #1 and #18 at 10 feet, which is smaller than the gap between #1 and #18 at 20′.

When we crunch the numbers, it’s about the total number of putts for the ‘best’ putter for each tester, and then determining for which other putters performance was not reliably different from that top putter.”